Week 9 DIBELS Assignment #3

Assignment #3

Compare and Contrast QRI5 and DIBELS

The Qualitative Reading Inventory- 5 (QRI-5) is an informal reading inventory that is individually administered.  It is constructed to supply data about the conditions under which students are successful or unsuccessful at recognizing words and comprehending text.  It’s purpose is to determine a person’s reading level- whether it be independent , instructional, or frustration level.  Diagnostic information is obtained. Oral and silent reading and listening ability of students are assessed using various passages and graded word lists.  The inventory spans from as early as pre-primer through the high school levels.

           

Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assess the achievement of early literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade.  Early literacy and reading skills are regularly monitored. DIBELS focuses on four out of five of the Big Ideas of Reading: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency, and comprehension.  Benchmark measures determine which students are at risk for reading difficulties.  This is a norm-referenced assessment.

            Both the Q.R.I-5 and DIBELS have similarities.  They both assess fluency, word accuracy and comprehension.  Although, fluency is sub-categorized in DIBELS. They both can be used as data-driven instruction.  Literacy is the focus of DIBELS and QRI-5.

Let’s take a look at some of the comparisons of each assessment.  DIBELS administers to students in the kindergarten through sixth grades.  However, the Q.R.I assesses students from Pre-Primer all the way through the high school level, which targets a much larger population.  The Q.R.I is an informal inventory, unlike DIBELS which is a standardized, norm-referenced assessment.  DIBELS provides comparative data as a result of this, so comparative data is presented in various ways.  On the other hand, the QRI-5 uses no comparative data.  Scores are individualized and aren’t interpreted in regards to any norm group.  Since DIBELS is a norm-referenced test, administering the tasks would look the same for all subjects. For QRI-5, since it is not norm-referenced, the examiner can decide on the quantity and type of passages to administer to the subjects.  As a result of the shorter increments of tasks and time limitations on the DIBELS, this assessment is much shorter in duration than that of its counterpart. For example, the Oral Fluency section of DIBELS has a time limit of one minute. QRI-5 does not have time limitations on the tasks.  DIBELS has a certain frequency of administering the test- about every three months, but QRI-5 doesn’t provide a frequency of testing schedule.  Although both assessments test oral fluency, there are specific details that are different.  During the recording of miscues, the examiner records omissions and substitutions in both tests.  However, in DIBELS, hesitations of 3 seconds are considered errors.  Words self-corrected within 3 seconds are considered accurate.  In the QRI-5, during the word lists administering, words that are identified within 1 second are considered automatic, and words correctly identified beyond that duration are considered as “identified”.  In the DIBELS, the retell fluency section is only administered to those reading at least 40 words per minute.  On the other hand, the QRI has no requirement for oral reading.  It is very interesting that although both assessments measure comprehension skills, only the QRI-5 includes comprehension questions (implicit and explicit).

Both assessments can be used to provide data to drive instruction.  Results of both can be used to determine students’ reading levels, choose appropriate books for book clubs, reading workshops, grouping students for guided reading, and independent reading.  Data can also be used to construct and implement intervention instruction.  Although both assessments can be used to document student growth, I believe that DIBELS demonstrates a higher and more productive progress monitoring  technique.  Between the color- coding comparative data and benchmark goals, as well as the short duration of administering the test, I think that it would be more practical and beneficial for a busy teacher to implement the DIBELS. Analyzing and comparing these two assessments made me reflect on my teaching approaches. I hope to one day successfully implement at least one of them in my classroom.